Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4942294 — Cleanliness
Decided 20 Aug 2024 · Published 20 Aug 2024 · Application 4942294
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- Kerri Justine Pijucan must pay [The landlord/s] $3,376.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- [The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
- The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.
- The Bond centre shall pay the Landlord $516.00 immediately.
- The Landlord shall use the rent credit to the debt owed by the Tenant.
Reasons
- The Landlord attended the hearing by video. The Tenant did not attend by video. When the Tenant was called by the Tribunal, the Tenant said the notice she received from the Tribunal stated the hearing was on 28 August 2024. The Tenant then questioned whether it was the Tribunal calling her, used profane language then disconnected the call.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, disposal of the goods, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The Tenancy began on 11 March 2022 and ended on 28 June 2024. The Tenant was evicted on 8 July 2024.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. An ingoing inspection and vacate inspection report showed the Tenant left behind a surplus of furniture, clothing and appliances. The Landlord had to remove all these items and then tend to the cleaning.
- The Landlord submitted there was a lot of cleaning of the ceiling because the Tenant had allowed cigarette smoking in the house which left a pungent smell. An invoice was provided to substantiate the cleaning. The Landlord submitted they sought two quotes and the second quote was $3000.00 to clean the property. The Tenant had not cleaned the windowsills during the tenancy so this also took extra time.
- In considering the evidence, I find the invoice for cleaning of a two-bedroom home is excessive. The property may have required further cleaning to rid the stench of cigarettes but there was insufficient evidence to reflect the high amount quoted in the invoice. Whilst the inspection report stated the carpet needed cleaning, there were no supporting photographs of the stains. I find the appropriate amount to award for the cleaning in this case is $700.00.
- The Landlord claimed $2530.00 to remove rubbish, undertake garden and lawn work. The Landlord submitted the grass had not been mowed since January 2024 so it needed mowing three times and then the weeds needed spraying. The back path required clearing as well as grass removal from the shrubs and tidying up of the hedges. The Landlord submitted there were tobacco weeds growing through the grass that needed removal. There was rubbish in the backyard including a fridge, lawnmower, bottles and bags strewn throughout the backyard. An invoice was provided for the work required which included quotes for ‘spray maintenance if required’ and ‘lawn maintenance including grass removal’.
- In considering the evidence, I find from the photographs, inspection reports and invoice that the cost is substantiated except for the ‘spray maintenance and ‘lawn maintenance including grass removal’ which equated to $135.00. The spray maintenance is not a confirmed amount. The ‘lawn maintenance’ after charges to mow the lawns three times is also a questionable amount. For these reasons, I have not awarded these two amounts from the quote provided.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
- Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
- Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
- Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Wall hole in the bathroom and lounge area -Oven missing knobs
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The Tenant was also ordered to repair the bathroom wall in previous proceedings but was not attended to by the Tenant. A quote was provided for the repair.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Disposal of goods
- The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy which includes furniture and appliances. The landlord agreed on a period for the tenant was to collect the goods, but the tenant failed to collect the goods within that time. The Landlord provided evidence of the contact they made with the tenant which was reasonable. The Tenant was also abusive during some of this communication.
- The Landlord provided evidence of the costs to store the goods and comparable goods sold on Trade me. The landlord was unable to obtain a second-hand dealer to assess the value of the goods. Photographs were also provided of the goods left behind and a quote to dispose of them.
- It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods and I award the Landlord the costs to dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I have also made an Order for the Tenants rental credit of $573.15 to be appled by the Landlord towards the Tenant’s debt owed.
- As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord.